Blindsite

I totally agree with you on agreeing on definitions and terms. I also have had the experience of arguing at cross purposes because of a difference in accepted terminology. (ex. fascism, capitalism, corporatism, etc). As I'm reading through your response several terms and items jump out at me.

"There are no serious leftists advocating for confiscating handtools, computers, furniture, or other such pieces of individual property from the entire population and redistributing them equally. Although the definition can be construed this way, no one is arguing for that. "

I would have to contest this point. Does it matter if you demand that a man turn over a loaf of bread if you put in place food rationing or tax the price of that loaf of bread? Does it matter if a man has a his physical assets left alone if his liquid assets are limited or taken from him? I find it ironic that the left labels hiring someone as exploitation but denies that taxation is extortion. The same with denouncing economic monopolies but promoting government which is a monopoly on violence by definition. If power is to be distributed then everyone should be responsible for their own self defense and monopolies on violence should be dissolved with the same vigilance as economic monopolies. Where is the antitrust agency against governments?

"Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. "

What? Labor = private individuals. He who creates owns. He who labors trades. This is why I find Marxism confusing. You don't get capital without mixing your labor with resources. You can't trade for some other product without gaining some kind of capital. Laborers = capitalists. Capitalists are not some upper class rich folks. If you plant seeds, till the ground and reap a harvest then that harvest you yield is your capital. if you sell that food you are a capitalist even if you are only making enough to keep your home running and to plant next years crop. Trade = capitalism. This whole paragraph makes NO sense! I'm just going to say that up front.

"From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organisation fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital…"

First of all centralization of wealth didn't just happen organically. Corporate charters are a product of the state. So is colonization. Seriously where would Big Pharma or Big Media be without patants and copyright? Where would modern economics be without limited liability? What if we stopped backing corporations up with government protectionism? "That guy copied my drug formula!" "That guy won't stop making free copies of my music album!" "That business copied my logo!" " Help I'm being sued for making a dangerous product and useless warning labels!" Don't get me started on private banks, the federal reserve or the IMF etc, all of which are ALSO businesses backed by government. Governments didn't just magically get money and land either. They literally stole it from other people for the most part through force of arms. So when you take monopolies on violence out of the picture and government protectionism out of the picture what are you left with? Self owned businesses backed by labor and trade, ie what Marx would call "laborers". Granted there can be centralizations of wealth but this can be countered by people just copying, innovating and undercutting others.

"Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour…"

Yeah this is another what? How is hiring and PAYING THEM free labor? You're out the cost of their pay cheque! They are literally trading their time and effort for money. How is that free labor either way? Moreover how is that exploitative? One could argue that one CAN exploit others by underpaying them but that's not what is being discussed here from what I understand. This seems to be a general statement about employment. So yeah, what?!?! Definitely a difference in terminology there.

"The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. "

As explained before there is no "capitalist" vs "individual" private property. The individual IS a capitalist. Ergo there is just "private property." Much of this seems to be discussing class divisions but trying to create a difference in terms between those who trade in goods and services and those who produce those goods and services. To use an example. A farmer grows a crop. He then sells that crop to a traveling merchant caravan. The caravan then transports those food stuffs to a big town market where they are resold by grocers in the marketplace. When does one start being an elite? Is it the caravan owner? The marketplace vendors? Who?

"But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. (Chapter 32)"

You're going to have to explain that because that makes zero sense. None. Zip.

And in this case we are not discussing politics but rather economics. Should one's private property be seized and distributed among the masses? How much water, food, territory, can one accrue before one has to fear the public utilizing violence against them? Arguably the poorest person on welfare in a first world country is a king compared to someone living in a third world country. If you have access to a grocery store, electricity, running water and some kind of medical care regardless of how shitty or expensive it might be then you're better off than thousands of people the world over. Then factor in things like health standards. Do you have to boil your water to make sure it's clean to drink? Do you have to put up with insect or rat infestations? Do you have a working stove and fridge? And the. What if THOSE huddled masses wanted to take your riches away and redistribute then?

Look I'm not saying that having more money than one can spend is healthy personally or culturally. Honestly if I had a couple thousand dollars I'd be set. A million and I probably wouldn't know what to do with it all. But that's not the issue as I see it. Where is the cut off point if we sanction forced redistribution?

Now a GIFT economy is completely different. Honoring people for giving stuff away is not only a totally voluntary system but also changes the cultural dynamic from honoring people for having lots of stuff. It changes the focus from accumulation to contribution.

Both left and right can get behind open source software. Both can support the concept of gifting. Where I see the conflict is when it comes to using compulsion. No the common good does not outweigh individual liberty because what you do to the individual you do to the whole. Sacrificing individual liberty for the greater good is a myth. You can't have taxation without sacrificing privacy and security of the collective. If you sacrifice freedom of speech for the sake of avoiding public offense then you sacrifice public discourse and the values of democracy. If rewrite history to exclude unpleasant truths then you risk repeating it.

As above, so below, as within, so without. It applies to society, politics and economics as well.

I have no problem with distributing funds that are given freely. I have a problem with all property that is taken using violence. How is taxation different than colonialism? You have big guns, you see something you want and you abscond with it. How is that different than what any empire does? The fact you redistribute it is irrelevant if it's done involuntarily.

Most right wing conservatives I've talked to are concerned with family, security, economic stability and freedom. They don't care if you live in a commune or if you want to run a redistribution fund so long as no one is being compelled to contribute. Further more for any public project they are very interested in how it's going to be paid for and who it will be paid for by. These are admittedly important questions.

The socialist on the other hand seems to dismiss individual liberties in favor of the community. And in here lies the problem. It's not about profit. It's about consent. Look even if you got the most giving community minded individualists together the sticking point would still be consent. Did they choose to give you their money. Even if they support the project and ideals behind it. A conservative and a liberal both believe in supporting families but the conservative wants to keep their money to donate to a local charity whereas the liberal thinks it should be taxed and redistributed into a welfare fund. They both believe in the same thing but have different economic policies about how to achieve them.

How would you codify redistribution and public ownership without licensing agreements or by utilizing violence? Really I'm not sure how you get around private ownership without violence. Copyleft licensing is based on copyright and parenting and is based on the notion that he who creates owns, and therefore he that creates can also give it away. But you wouldn't have patents and copyright without private ownership.

And if there is no private ownership, say of land or water or natural resources, then what then? Can anyone utilize anything? Why own anything or pay taxes if you don't own anything? And we're back to the gift economy issue again. Contribute vs accrue. So why not start with making it voluntary to begin with?

Also please explain to me if all capitalism is right wing how a communist country like China is a capitalist powerhouse. Is China left wing or right wing from your perspective?

Uh no. Where are you getting these definitions?

The workers are private individuals, they own property privately. So even if they are part of a cooperative and each own a share of the company and all vote on its direction for example that's still capitalism. The means of production is still privately owned.

Socialism is defined as a society with social ownership. You can do this a couple different ways. You can use the GPL model and licence something free for everyone. You can do what Canada has done with its water and other crown assets and declare they belong to everyone (which is why Nestle is trying to exploit it and American Nestle food products are going to go up in price thanks to terrifs). You can tax everyone and redistribute the assets in services and public works (but this requires a monopoly on violence). Or your culture can simply declare some or many things just can't be owned. But the more collective ownership you have the more risk you run of dictatorship. No communist country has managed to pull off its classless ideal. In fact the closest examples I can think of are the First Nations with their various models of living in harmony with nature and not taking ownership of it in the first place. How can you own land if you constantly move around, let alone owning land in absentia. In fact I think Equador outlawed owning land in absentia outright so the concept isn't that radical. But my point is social ownership isn't just grabbing the means of production. A worker IS a capitalist. A business owner is a capitalist. A self employed independent contractor is a capitalist. Capitalism is not limited to big corporations and fat cats earning million dollar paycheques. Socializing ownership doesn't negate that.

When does one stop being a "worker" and start being a "capitalist"? When they start their own business? When they make more than $15/hr? When they hire their first employee? When they bring in more than poverty wages? When they earn $10k a month? 50k? 500k? 1M? When does an individual trading goods and services become a "capitalist"? When do these "capitalists" seize the means of production if not through trade? And how would you propose to decentralize said means of production without violence save by through trade and innovation once more?

In short how would you propose to achieve decentralized ownership without the use of a monopoly on violence?

Okay instead of walls of text speak plainly what do you mean?

• How do you define "capitalism"?
• How is it an ideology as opposed to an economic system?
• How would you define that ideology?
• To what historical references are you citing? Please provide links or some other form of citation.
• Liberalism is kind of broad. Are we talking the American definition, Canadian, classical liberal, time of the Enlightenment? What?

Look the problem with ideological folks like you is you go off on rants and never clearly define your terms. (I've talked to a couple different people like you so the whole wall of text thing is kind of familiar and I'll admit I do it myself from time to time but I do try to clearly define terms.) Then when people debate with you you get all worked up. I may or may not agree with you but I have no idea at this point since your terminology is all over the place.

In as much as I'm able to gather from what you're talking about yes there is a core ideological divide. Though I wouldn't say it's between rationalism and capitalism. More between democracy and imperialism, or decentralized and centralized power systems. Money is just one way to obtain and utilize power. But if your core goal is to build an empire as opposed to establish a decentralized cooperative say or some other egalitarian system then the structure your business takes will be massively different even if the same amount of money is accumulated. Capitalism isn't the problem it's what people are doing with it. Money is just power. So what are people doing with their power? Most people structure their families as dictatorships and their businesses as extensions of those familiesm. And a kingdom of empire is just a family with a lot of accumulated power. It takes quite a bit of thinking to get people to want to redistribute power out to the whole community. Or you have to start from the ground up. How do you structure your families and communities? How do you treat those around you? Do you take care of those around you or only look after your own? Potluck or private dinner? Basic stuff. So instead of getting angry about politics maybe try something smaller. Host a potluck dinner and invite a bunch of friends. Teach people about gardening and maybe get together to start a community garden or an initiative to help one another with various projects. Mutual support on a local level is just as much a part of decentralization as trying to wrench production back from big corporations. I mean if you grow your own food and make your own stuff won't that add up? But again you don't need to be all angry about it. Just help people.

So what? You don't like the voluntary exchange of goods and services? Trade = capitalism. Furthermore you'd rather trust the government than the average individual? Yeah I get the desire for socialized medical care and welfare. Whatever. But even countries with socialized public services have private sectors. So let's get more fundamental.

Capital = having money. Capitalism = engaging in trade, that is exchanging one asset or services for another for mutual benefit. Fascism != Capitalism. Government != Fascism Fascism = government + capitalism. More specifically there are certain hallmarks of fascism that sadly are showing up in western society. But capitalism alone does not equate to that. You don't get an authoritarian regime by engaging in trade. You need to pass laws in order to get that. You wouldn't even have corporations without government support.

So again I'm hesitant to throw in with the pro government movement when half of this whole fascism/corporate problem is government. I mean I'm against the whole monopoly on violence to begin with but saying voluntary interaction is bad but violence is good seems rather counterintuitive to me. You don't need government to decentralize things or return the means of production to the people or whatever but still such things should be voluntary. That's why open source is so revolutionary. It's essentially a gift economy and doesn't use transactions or violence. People give their time and labor away and everyone benefits. Code ensures transparency and decentralized distribution. Furthermore without patents and copyright from the private sector we wouldn't have copy left and open source software. Just some food for thought there.

Rule of thumb? You can't. There is always a risk of malware. Best is to up your computer security with a good set of antivirus, antimalware and a VPN.

Yet if you want certification to get a job people keep asking to be trained on proprietary tech. I mean I totally agree with you man but the academic market is frustrating.

I guess that means they don't have an XBox or play a lot of PC games? Maybe they prefer Nintendo or PlayStation?

I think Google justifies the whole process with ads. Sure it's all piracy but you come for the music, pirated or not, and they sell ads to you and someone gets paid revenue. I think YT would have an easier time of it if they improved gemini and integrated it as a DJ like spotify has its own music DJ.

Private contract work maybe? Or maybe try teaching or tutoring? Something you can arrange around an appointment shedule that can accomodate your needs. I feel you man. I'm disabled and living on welfare and no one wants to hire a legally blind epileptic that can't drive, it's just to much of a liability issue for them.

I don't think it's the amount but rather the context given the character development. If the character is always ecchi then it makes more sense. If you have a random sex scene then it doesn't quite make sense. That's true whether it's anime or a romance novel. In fact anime is often compared to literature, as opposed to other visual media like television because of it's advanced character development. I've got no problem with tons of fan service but I agree it has to be paired with good writing. I don't find excessive amounts of Plot bad so much as badly written story and plot, now that's cringe. So in essence I would disagree with the assertion that everyone hates fanservice but add the caveat that randomly throwing in a sex scene does not automatically improve things on its own either.